Customs—Prosecution—Information—Indictment—Contents—Importation of narcotic goods—Traffickable quantity—Aggravating circumstances—Practice where previous convictions—Practice on trial by jury—Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s. 235(2)(d), (e).

Decisions

GIBBS C.J., WILSON AND DAWSON JJ.: This application by the prosecution for special leave to appeal exposes some of the problems created by the form of s.233B and s.235 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), as amended, which sections respectively create a number of offences with respect to narcotic goods and provide maximum penalties for those offences. Section 233B(1) provides, inter alia:

"Any person who -

...

(d) aids, abets, counsels, or procures, or is in any way knowingly concerned in, the importation into Australia of any prohibited imports to which this section applies, or the exportation from Australia of any prohibited exports to which this section applies;

...

shall be guilty of an offence."

The prohibited imports to which the section applies are narcotic goods: s.233B(2). The relevant provisions of s.235, which are set out in Kingswell v. The Queen (1985) 60 ALJR 17, at p 18; 62 ALR 161, at pp 165-166, have the effect that the maximum penalty for an offence against s.233B varies according to a number of circumstances, including whether the quantity of the narcotic goods exceeded either a commercial quantity or a trafficable quantity, and whether the offender had previously been convicted of an offence of a specified kind involving narcotic goods. For present purposes it is sufficient to repeat the provisions of pars.(c), (d) and (e) of s.235(2), which provide, subject to immaterial matters, that where a person commits an offence against s.233B(1) -

"(c) where the Court is satisfied -

(i) that the narcotic goods in relation to which the offence was committed consist of a quantity of a prescribed narcotic substance that is not less than the
commercial quantity applicable to that substance; or

(ii) that the narcotic goods in relation to which the offence was committed consist of a quantity of a narcotic substance that is not less than the trafficable quantity applicable to that substance and also that, on a previous occasion, a court has -

(A) convicted the person of another offence, being an offence against a provision referred to in paragraph (a) that involved other narcotic goods which consisted of a quantity of a narcotic substance not less than the trafficable quantity that was applicable to that substance when the offence was committed; or

(B) found, without recording a conviction, that the person had committed another such offence -

imprisonment for life or for such period as the Court thinks appropriate;

(d) where the Court is satisfied that the narcotic goods in relation to which the offence was committed consist of a quantity of a narcotic substance that is not less than the trafficable quantity applicable to the substance but is not satisfied as provided in paragraph (c) -

(i)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Meaton

Details

AGLC: R v Meaton [1986] HCA 27
Case: [1986] HCA 27
Decision Date: 22 May 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Meaton, which concerned the proper application of the defence of provocation in a murder trial. The appellant had been convicted of murder and sought to argue that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the elements of provocation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the jury had been adequately instructed on the objective elements of provocation, specifically the requirement that the provocation must be such as would have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control. The court also considered the subjective element, namely whether the accused had in fact lost self-control due to that provocation.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions were insufficient. Gibbs C.J. and Wilson J, in separate but concurring judgments, emphasised that the jury must be directed that the provocation must be of a kind that could have induced an ordinary person to act as the accused did. Brennan J, while agreeing with the outcome, focused on the need for the jury to consider the cumulative effect of provocatory acts. Deane and Dawson JJ also concurred, reinforcing the importance of the jury's assessment of whether the provocation was sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. The court found that the jury had not been properly guided in making this crucial determination.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.

Orders